Ironworks Gaming Forum

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   Yusuf Islam won't be scheduling any US tours.... (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=77332)

Ronn_Bman 09-22-2004 08:13 AM

Quote:

Ex-singer Cat Stevens denied US access
Posted Wed, 22 Sep 2004

A United Airlines flight from London to Washington was rerouted to Bangor, Maine, late Tuesday to prevent Yusuf Islam, the British pop musician formerly known as Cat Stevens, from entering the United States, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

Islam, who converted to Islam in 1977, was believed to be a financial supporter of groups believed to be linked to terrorism, US officials told the daily.

He was "denied entry into the United States", the officials said, adding that Islam was to be deported without indicating when.

One official said Islam "is not on a watch list for making verbal threats".

The US Department of Homeland Security ordered the Boeing 747-400 airliner to alter its destination to Bangor, where Islam was placed in the custody of Immigrations and Customs officials.

AFP

You know this does seem ridiculous. I mean, how much of a threat is the artist formally know as Cat?

Of course if he were allowed to stay and actually did something bad, people would clamor about the failure of security to recogize even the most obvious and well known threats. :(

[ 09-22-2004, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Morgeruat 09-22-2004 12:00 PM

Perhaps DHS was worried about his past political stances;

• He publicly supported the Ayatollah Khomeini's death sentence for blasphemy against Salman Rushdie in 1989 , although he has backtracked since then.
• He was denied entry into Israel for donating thousands to the civilian-murdering terrorists of Hamas -- although now he denies this too.

Timber Loftis 09-22-2004 12:27 PM

Hey, he may have made good music, but if he funded groups like Hammas and PFLP and all the other jihad-linked charities, I don't want him coming around here. Of course, maybe if they had released all the info about him to the general public and allowed him to go ahead and visit, he may have thought twice about it.

Chewbacca 09-23-2004 12:20 AM

Wait... A flight was diverted 600 miles because of "CONCERNS" that this guy may have given to charities that may be linked to Hammas. No proof, no trial, no charges; just "Concerns". The shame.

It should also be noted that Mr. Islam has openly and publicly denounced terrorism countless times, and has never been convicted of a crime related to terrorism.

The real "crime" here has not been committed by Mr. Islam and it disturbs me that Americans actually support this kind of wasteful activity being taken on such flimsy grounds. It seems to me that "Islamaphobia" once again has reared its ugly head.


Quote:


Link

Mr Islam was denied access to Israel four years ago after claims he had donated money to Hamas, but said he had "never knowingly supported any terrorist groups - past, present or future."

He sold 50m albums before renouncing music for charity and educational work after converting to Islam. He founded several Muslim schools in London and as head of the Islamia Schools Trust has met the prime minister and the Prince of Wales. He donated profits from recent album sales to the September 11 bereaved, saying that no "right-thinking" Muslim could condone the attacks.

Quote:

Link
Islam has made a number of trips to the United States in recent years, including one in May for a charity event and to promote a DVD of his 1976 MajiKat tour. He donated half the royalties from his most recent boxed set to the Sept. 11 Fund to help victims of the attacks.


Recently, Islam has criticized terrorist acts, including the Sept. 11 attacks and the school seizure in Beslan, Russia, earlier this month that left more than 300 dead, nearly half of them children.
*
SNIP
*
In a statement on his Web site, he wrote, "Crimes against innocent bystanders taken hostage in any circumstance have no foundation whatsoever in the life of Islam and the model example of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him."



Donut 09-23-2004 04:40 AM

Can someone please tell me why "Paranoia Flight 141" was diverted rather than just turning him back at immigration?

Was it because an American Immigration officer had recently heard the 60's hit "I'm gonna get me a gun" and saw it as a threat?

He has donated money to the families of those that died in the 9/11 attacks and was allowed into the US earlier this year.

The Foreign Minister, Jack Straw, has protested to Colin Powell about the expulsion.

Timber Loftis 09-23-2004 10:24 AM

Quote:

No proof, no trial, no charges; just "Concerns". The shame.
The Shame? That's the same thing you hippies cry when a plane slams into a building and you got your hand out wanting money. Not a damn thing good enough for you. You bitch when something is done, you bitch when it isn't. If they'd done nothing, we'd see a Dan Rather special on lax security.

Quote:

Can someone please tell me why "Paranoia Flight 141" was diverted rather than just turning him back at immigration?
Of course that would have been better. So some airline employees made a decision that wasn't as stellar as the decision that would have been made over a 2-hour tea. Big deal. It's just a diverted flight amongst thousands a day, folks. Is it really worth getting your panties in such a big wad over?

[ 09-23-2004, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Chewbacca 09-23-2004 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No proof, no trial, no charges; just "Concerns". The shame.

The Shame? That's the same thing you hippies cry when a plane slams into a building and you got your hand out wanting money. Not a damn thing good enough for you. You bitch when something is done, you bitch when it isn't. If they'd done nothing, we'd see a Dan Rather special on lax security.

</font>[/QUOTE]Lame argument, Nice ad hominem/strawman.

As a matter of fact this post is so insulting that I have lost any and all respect for you, what little I had left after the "supporting terrorists" accusations a while back.

So come back when you actually want to discuss the issue and have some sort of proof to back up the claims of terror support.

Timber Loftis 09-23-2004 05:17 PM

Ooooh, big latin words. Listen, there's a point to what I just said and you know it. There really is truth to the saying that you can't please everybody. Had they done nothing, you know there really would be a news story on how another threat slipped through. It would at least get a mention in a stump speech. Tell me it wouldn't.

And, I think our long discussion before was about terrorist supporters, and I think if finally gave up and dropped it as well. It's not like I accused anyone here of having the courage, audacity, conviction, or stupidity to strap on a bomb and actually be a terrorist. It was about supporting a side -- and I really don't want to get into it again, cause we beat it to death.

I think you just got so incensed I called you a hippie. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] It was just a rant, man. I once had Jerry Bears on my bumper sticker, too. I'm just words you read online, you shouldn't get so offended.

And, I'm really sad if I lost your respect. No... really. Damn, where's that sincerity smiley? I know it's in here somewhere...

Donut 09-23-2004 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
The Shame? That's the same thing you hippies cry when a plane slams into a building and you got your hand out wanting money. Not a damn thing good enough for you. You bitch when something is done, you bitch when it isn't. If they'd done nothing, we'd see a Dan Rather special on lax security.


Then why not ban all international flights. You won't have to be scared then.

"hippies"?? - you been drinking again TL, or are you still in that 60's time warp!

[ 09-23-2004, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: Donut ]

Timber Loftis 09-24-2004 09:38 AM

It was 4:17 pm here Donut. Only blue collar folks drink at that hour!

Apparently, I'm being unclear again. Look Here.

[edit]Since I didn't know the facts, my opinion expressed above was premised on an "IF."

But now I've looked at a few facts about this yet another fanciful story in our wild world.
http://catstevens.com/

[ 09-24-2004, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Oblivion437 09-24-2004 05:26 PM

In short, the authorities may have been paranoid, but most of the complaints come from people who in the same breath bitch about lax security Re: 9/11.

I can release the dogs, or the bees, or dogs with bees in their mouths so that when they bark they shoot bees at you, but instead, I'll release: The robotic Richard Simmons!

Chewbacca, if you're going to call logical fallacy, at least know what the hell you're doing first, and render their application properly. He didn't attack you, or respond to a point other than was made...

Besides, Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam wasn't detained for being a Muslim, he was detained for terrorist connections. Just so you know, according to the Geneva Convention (which we're bound to) giving aid to known terrorists is a crime.

pritchke 09-29-2004 11:34 AM

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">Well we should listen to Yusuf Islam side of the story.</font>

Something Bad Has Begun


I was flying to Nashville last week with my 21-year-old daughter to explore some new musical ideas with a record label there. Ironically, I was trying to remain low-profile because of the speculation that it might have raised in the music world about a return of "the Cat." Media attention was the last thing I wanted. But it seems God wanted otherwise.

Toward the end of our journey from London to Washington, the plane was diverted. The captain announced something about "heavy traffic." After landing in Bangor, Maine, six tall, blue-uniformed officers boarded and surrounded me and my daughter.

"Is your name Yusuf Islam?" they asked.

"Yes," I confirmed.

"Do you mind coming with us and answering a few questions?"

At that point my heart stopped, and my daughter's face turned aspirin-white. This was the start of the nightmare.

Three FBI agents escorted me away from my daughter and asked me questions. At first, it sounded like they might have me mixed up with somebody else, as they repeated the spelling of my name.

"No. Y-u-s-u-f," I carefully spelled out. The agents looked a bit puzzled.

As they continued asking questions, some of their queries were obviously not related to me, so I thought this must be a matter of simple mistaken identity. Whether it was a mix-up or not remained unclear because they weren't under any obligation to give me a reason; the green visa waiver form I had so neatly filled in earlier had effectively denied me any right to appeal or answers. It was only when an immigration official read out to me a legal reference number that he mentioned some implication with "terrorism" — no further details necessary.

The most upsetting thing was being separated from my daughter for 33 hours — not knowing how she was or when and where we might be united. Because my phone was confiscated, I couldn't contact my family.

God almighty! Is this the same planet I'd taken off from? I was devastated. The unbelievable thing is that only two months earlier, I had been having meetings in Washington with top officials from the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to talk about my charity work. Even further back, one month after the attack on the World Trade Center, I was in New York meeting Peter Gabriel and Hillary Rodham Clinton at the World Economic Forum!

Had I changed that much? No. Actually, it's the indiscriminate procedure of profiling that's changed. I am a victim of an unjust and arbitrary system, hastily imposed, that serves only to belittle America's image as a defender of the civil liberties that so many dearly struggled and died for over the centuries.

Need I say that any form of terrorism or violence is the antithesis of everything I love and stand for? Anyone who knows me will attest to this. I have spent my life in the search for peace and understanding, and that was mirrored clearly in my music. Since becoming a Muslim, I have devoted my life to education, charity and helping children around the world.

Consistently I have condemned the attacks of 9/11, stating that the slaughter of innocents, the taking of hostages and coldblooded killing of women and children have nothing do with the teachings of Islam. I've openly and publicly repudiated the actions of groups that resort to such acts of inhumanity — whatever their names. Any allegations to the contrary are fabricated. The Koran equates the murder of one innocent person with the murder of all of humanity.

Ever since I embraced Islam in 1977, people have regularly tried to link me with things I have nothing to do with. Take the Salman Rushdie case as an example, or the regurgitating of the accusation that I support groups like Hamas.

I am a man of peace, and I denounce all forms of terrorism and injustice; it is simply outrageous for anyone to suggest otherwise. The fact that I have sympathy for ordinary people in the world who are suffering from occupation, tyranny, poverty or war is human and has nothing to do with politics or terrorism.

Thank God my daughter and I were relieved of our ordeal and delivered home safely. I also thank all those who prayed for me and supported me through this dark episode; I have never harbored any ill will toward people of God's great Earth anywhere — and wish the reverse was also true.


Source

[ 09-29-2004, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Cerek 09-29-2004 01:18 PM

<font color=plum>First of all, if you have changed your name to <font color=yellow>"Mr. Islam"</font> and you board a flight bound for Washington, D.C. - you have to expect to raise a few eyebrows. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Having said that, though, it is obvious this was a gross over-reaction by the authorities. According to <font color=lime>Pritchke's</font> source, Yusuf/Cat has been in D.C. very recently on previous trips. If his name didn't raise alarms then, it certainly shouldn't now.

Personally, I would like to see more documented evidence of his supporting Hamas and the "death sentence" issued for Salman Rushdie. I realize Yusuf/Cat categorically denies these allegations - but that is to be expected. In this case, he would appear to have more motivation to lie about the facts than his accusers.

However, the many documented accounts of his charity efforts do offset the allegations and lend support to his claim that he denounces terrorism.

I think Yusuf/Cat IS playing the "wounded/victimized diva" role a bit too much, but that is because this will all generate free publicity that will only increase interest in his future (and past) recordings.

Even if the claims of supporting Hamas prove to be true, does that make him a legitimate "No Fly" candidate? Do the authorities believe he may be using his celebrity status to access areas they cannot in an attempt to "scout" targets for them?</font>

Morgeruat 09-29-2004 01:30 PM

Cerek heres a bit more, from the National Post:

TORONTO - Yusuf Islam, the British singer formerly known as Cat Stevens, was the guest of honour at a Toronto fundraising dinner hosted by an organization that has since been identified by the Canadian government as a "front" for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.

In a videotape of the 1998 event obtained by the National Post, Mr. Islam describes Israel as a "so-called new society" created by a "so-called religion" and urges the audience to donate to the Jerusalem Fund for Human Services to "lessen the suffering of our brothers and sisters in Palestine and the Holy Land."

The Jerusalem Fund is one of four "fronts" named in a secret Privy Council Office memo that was sent to Jean Chretien, then prime minister, on May 23, 2000, discussing what it called groups that "have unsavoury links with terrorism.

"In a limited number of cases, fundraising in support of violent foreign struggles takes place in Canada through the cover of ethnic, religious or community-based associations and groups, lobbying and even criminal activity," the report says.

"Front groups operating in Canada include the Jerusalem Fund for Human Services (Hamas Front), the World Tamil Movement (Tamil Tigers Front), the Canadian Kurdish Information Network (Kurdistan Workers Party Front) and the Babbar Khalsa (a Sikh extremist front)."

Hamas, also known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, is responsible for most of the suicide bombings against Israelis. Canada has outlawed Hamas under federal anti-terrorism legislation, making it illegal to support the group....

But on June 20, 1998, Mr. Islam gave the keynote address at a Jerusalem Fund fundraising dinner held in Toronto. The event was videotaped, and a copy was obtained by the SITE Institute, a U.S. terrorism research organization.

The video opens with a scene of Niagara Falls, overlayed with the Jerusalem Fund logo, which features the al-Aqsa Mosque and the maple leaf. It begins with an unidentified man explaining the activities of the Jerusalem Fund, which he describes as "helping the Muslims in Palestine" by financing hospitals, health clinics, families in need and orphans.

"Palestine is close to the heart of each and every Muslim. What the Muslims of Palestine have been doing for many years now has been that bright light shining, that hope ... that they are still believers that can raise the banner of jihad in the most difficult of circumstances."

Mr. Islam then begins a 45-minute speech in English in which he says it is "intolerable" for Muslims to "stand and watch" the situation in the Middle East. He describes Jerusalem as the centre of a land that is holy because of its connection to Allah.

"So this city which is blessed because of its religious nature. Therefore, what we see today is the result of the departure of religion from this area, of the uprooting of religion. So many of the people of the faith have been exiled from this region, moved on, to make way for what? Strangely and ironically, they moved on in the name of so-called religion, on behalf of ... the Jews.

"Of course, that would explain what is happening. Because the moment that religion and religious virtues disappear, there for sure follows trouble, tyranny, oppression," he says. "So what do we see then today? The concoction of a so-called new society based on an old society."

He says there could be "no redeemer except Allah. No political concept or construct or treaty or agent except the laws of Allah, which he instructed for this world. Jerusalem is that, the symbol of that. Out of the hands of the righteous then it falls into disrepute and blood.

"Jerusalem, al-Quds, it is a mirror reflecting the reality ... If it is dark, if it is bloody, then so too is the world. Today it reflects injustice of the secular man over the religious man. And how can the secular man be given the control and the sanctuary of the divine place of worship when he doesn't even respect what is holy? How? And how can those of faith allow that to happen? Therefore, peace will not return until we return to the Holy Land."

Timber Loftis 09-29-2004 01:37 PM

Quote:

First of all, if you have changed your name to "Mr. Islam" and you board a flight bound for Washington, D.C. - you have to expect to raise a few eyebrows.
Can someone please clue me in. Is it required that you take a muslim name if you convert to Muslinism, or is it just like the rainbow-pin-wearing brigade who feel the need to shove their personal lives in everyone's face??

Morgeruat 09-29-2004 01:41 PM

I don't know if it's required, but it seems to be very common among converts. Perhaps only the first name is required to be changed (having to do with naming conventions in that part of teh world where the last name is actually the father's first name for males...)

Morgeruat 09-29-2004 01:42 PM

From Rob Spencer, author of Onward Muslim Soldiers, and Islam Unveiled.

Quote:

One thing that has been overlooked in the whole recent Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens imbroglio is that if he is indeed telling the truth, the implications are even worse than if he is lying.

Islam, the former pop star, was denied entry into the U.S. last week because, according to Homeland Security department spokesman Brian Doyle, “of activities that could potentially be related to terrorism. It’s a serious matter.”

DHS has steadfastly remained mum about what exactly these activities are. Opponents of the department have rushed to fill the vacuum with theories mining both the incompetent and the sinister. Yusuf Islam himself complained: “The whole thing is totally ridiculous. Half of me wants to smile, half of me wants to growl.” Time magazine asserted that it was a case of mistaken identity based on a spelling error: it quoted “aviation sources with access to the list” to the effect that “there is no Yusuf Islam on the no-fly registry, though there is a ‘Youssouf Islam.’” The Muslim American Society chipped in with the sinister angle by posting at its website a message from a leftist blogger named Kurt Nimmo, asserting that Bush kept the singer out of the U.S. “as a public relations ploy in an effort to seize control of airline passenger lists … and also portray a famous Muslim and peace activist as a terrorist in support of Hamas.”

DHS wouldn’t have had to work very hard to portray the ex-Cat as a supporter of the terrorists of Hamas. The connections to the terror group are relatively recent: in 1998, Yusuf Islam spoke at a fundraising dinner sponsored by an organization, the Jerusalem Fund for Human Services, that has been identified by the Canadian government as a Hamas front group. He exhorted his hearers to donate to the group in order to “lessen the suffering of our brothers and sisters in Palestine and the Holy Land.” In 2000, he was denied entry into Israel for donating thousands to Hamas. Again, Islam denied it all, saying: “I want to make sure that people are aware that I’ve never knowingly supported any terrorist groups — past, present or future. It’s simply an attempt to cast doubt again on my character and good intentions.”

So in essence, if Cat Stevens is not a proponent of the global jihad, he is, by his own admission, a dupe. He sent thousands to Israel to support his “brothers and sisters in Palestine”; even if he really didn’t intend it to go to Hamas, it did. This is an indication of what Muslims who do not support terrorism face daily: so many Islamic “charities” have turned out to be terrorist fronts that many whose intentions were quite different have ended up being supporters of terror unwittingly. There is no separation in mosques and Islamic communities between moderate and radical Muslims, and neither camp has shown any indication of wanting to create one.

What’s more, the checkered post-conversion career of the former feline himself indicates that even the moderate/radical distinction itself is not hard and fast. He publicly supported the Ayatollah Khomeini’s death sentence for blasphemy against Salman Rushdie in 1989 (“The Qur’an makes it clear,” said the author of “Peace Train,” that “if someone defames the Prophet, then he must die”), although he has backtracked since then. His statements supporting the Rushdie fatwa are a case in point: now he says he spoke out of new convert’s enthusiasm and based his answer on abstract considerations of Islamic law, not intending actually to support the novelist’s murder — thereby saying something about both Islamic law and converts. Khomeini’s fatwa, as Cat the student of Islam had no doubt recently learned, was no innovation, but entirely consistent with Islamic law mandating death for blasphemers. And his convert’s zeal, anxious as he was to act upon the newly-absorbed lessons of Islam, has manifested itself in more ominous forms more recently: witness “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh, shoe bomber Richard Reid, dirty bomb hopeful Jose Padilla, and on and on. They didn’t set out to learn “radical Islam” or “moderate Islam.” They just wanted to learn Islam.

Thus if Cat is telling the truth about not supporting terrorism, his case is a striking reminder of the deep crisis within Islam: terror has intertwined itself with the religion so tightly today that it cannot be separated even by those who claim to abhor all that the terrorists stand for. Muslims today can’t seem to ride the peace train even if they want to.

Timber Loftis 09-29-2004 01:47 PM

So.... are we to go back to saying down with Islam? Or down with fundamentalism? How far are we to draw our circle defining enemies of the state? Is it fair to assume that, whether or not Islam *IS* it, there *COULD* be a religion, the existence of which was so repugnant to human existence and morality that we cannot abide by the existence of that religion, and must outlaw it?

Morgeruat 09-29-2004 02:03 PM

Actually I tend to believe that nothing will happen about radicals (of any stripe) unless the mainstream comunities draw a defining line, and work to excise the fringe element themselves, for instance whenever the KKK holds rallies, there are usually an equal (if not higher) amount of human rights protestors that show up to put on their own rally. This is the kind of showing we need from ALL communities wherein radicals take root, otherwise the only solution is one that was mentioned on another thread, turn the region that breeds these elements into a "glass ashtray"

Cerek 09-29-2004 05:17 PM

<font color=plum>It still seems that the "ties" Yusuf/Cat has to Hamas is 2-3 degrees removed in each case cited.

Celebrities bring high-profile attention to the causes they support. It wouldn't be hard at all to imagine some of the Hollywood elite supporting the same (or at least) very similar "charities" or causes as Yusuf/Cat has. Should they be followed and have their names put on "No Fly" lists?

I'm not excusing the links that Yusuf/Cat does seem to have to Islamic extremists - but donating funds is far different than actively campaigning or recruiting for the the cause. Yes, he gave the keynote address for the Hamas front in Canada - but he didn't say "You must join the fight with our brothers and sisters". I know it is a matter of degrees (or splitting hairs), but I just don't see that his actions represent a true and legitimate threat to the United States. A better case may be made for the danger he represents to Israel, but I would imagine the U.S. should be pretty safe.

I do feel he is trying to do a huge amount of CYA now that his "ties" have been exposed - but that still doesn't warrant diverting a plane 600 miles out of it's way when the FBI could just as easily met him at the D.C. airport and questioned him there.</font>

Timber Loftis 09-29-2004 11:22 PM

Here's the problem. In 1998, there were a small number of detainees who had supported the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine ("PFLP") that lost a case at the US Supreme wherein they were seeking many of the "supposed freedoms" that are explicitly denied by the new Patriot Act -- including basic things such as the right to challenge the agency prior to final agency review (during which time -- 2+ years -- they were incarcerated).

The point? The point is that for several years now, waaay prior to 9/11, the government of this country has been seeking to stop people from donating to organizations supporting terror.

Now, Cat Stevens may have accidentally supported terror, but he's no dummy and during the time period he was speaking at these functions I think if he had half a brain he knew some money was going into Palestine to support Palestinian efforts. Palestinian efforts have been largely, yes, terrorist.

Some food for thought. He can sing and preach "peace train," but I think we should still suspect him. That doesn't mean he is guilty, nor a terrorist or terrorist supporter. What it means is that in the new "better safe than sorry" era, there are enough unanswered questions about his motives and past activities that it is not totally unreasonable to put him on the "uh... let's not let him in" list, should our gummint deem it appropriate.

Now, all this is assuming they had the right spelling of the name on the list. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Cerek 09-30-2004 05:53 AM

<font color=plum>Well, to turn this thing around a bit, if you look at it from the authorities POV, their actions are more understandable.

According to <font color=orange>Morgeraut's</font> article, authorities thought they may have "Youssouf" Islam instead of "Yusuf" Islam. I searched the web but couldn't find any info on the activities or suspicions surrounding Youssouf, but let's assume (for the moment) that his ties to terrorist groups is more direct than Yusuf/Cat's.

Cat Stevens has been out of the public spotlight for several years now. I doubt I would have recognized him anyway, but the full beard he was wearing - he really looks much different than he did before.

So the authorities know they have a Muslim on a plane with a name that corresponds closely to one of the names on the "No Fly" list. Again, I have no idea what Youssouf is accused of doing, but let's consider that their IS a legit reason for his name being on the list.

If the authorities felt they had Youssouf (instead of Yusuf), it certainly is logical for them to disbelieve the story they are being given. Youssouf would presumably have a good reason to lie about his real name and identity and to pretend to be an innocent victim of mistaken identity. It also makes sense for the authorities to separate "Youssouf" from his traveling companion and to question her separately (although there is no mention of Cat's daughter being questioned by the authorities).

This still may not justify keeping the two of them apart for 33 hours and doesn't explain WHY it took so long to establish Cat's true identity. It also doesn't explain why he was sent back out of the country this time when he had been allowed in the country just a few months ago (other than the fact that the authorities didn't want to admit that they just made a mistake).

In short, there may have been a perfectly good reason to keep "Youssouf" out of the country, and this certainly explains the actions taken by the authorities. It also does justify (to a degree) the interrogation and scrutiny that Cat Stevens had to endure (although not completely). I will agree that it should have been easy enough to determine his true identity and actual threat level in less than 33 hours, but from the authorities POV, "Youssouf" Islam would have very legit reasons for lying about his identity and trying to stonewall any interrogations.

What the authorities should have done once they figured out they had captured Cat Stevens is to issue a brief, public apology to Yusuf for the mistake made and the inconvenience it caused him, but they should then have allowed him to continue on his trip to Nashville with his daughter. If they really did feel he was still a possible threat, it would have been easy enough to follow him and monitor his movements.

As for Cat Steven's himself, there certainly does seem to be enough evidence that he supported the fatwa against Rushdie and that he at least passively supports the Hamas group. Either that, or he has been incredibly naive' about where his donations were really going and what they were being used for.</font>

Morgan_Corbesant 10-02-2004 12:39 PM

LOL. America recieves terrorist threats on a routine basis. That is why nobody thought September 11th would actually happen. Then people get bent out of shape when it does happen. So then we raise/lower terror alerts afterwards and people complain. If we shut down our country because of every terrorist threat, then we would just cease to function. That is how terrorists would beat us...just threaten us to death. This guy is KNOWN to have done this, but his denials are expected. He was probably trying to come to America in order to fund a sleeper cell or deliver a message to them or something. I think its good that they didn't allow him in. Its easy for him to say that he wasn't coming for bad reasons, but what do you expect him to say? " Yeah, I'm here to give orders and money to a sleeper cell that plans on blowing up the Empire State Building". America has gotten too soft and it will be our downfall. We have liberals bitching about the living conditions of POW's in Cuba when they are eating and living better than they were before. They complain that the prisoners aren't being allowed constitutional rights, when they aren't American thus don't rate our rights. It's truly baffleing.

Stratos 10-02-2004 02:54 PM

The complain about the prisoners at Guantanamo has more to do with the Geneva Convention than the Constitution.

Morgan_Corbesant 10-02-2004 03:50 PM

Yeah, but they said their constitutional rights were being violated. Most of those complaining don't even know what they are talking about. We give them food, water, shelter, medicine, gas-masks, blankets, excercise, they write letters, etc. All the things they are supposed to have according to the Geneva Convention they have. That was my point, sorry I was being to obscure with what I wrote. These issues anger me and cloud my judgement and writing.

Chewbacca 10-07-2004 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Ooooh, big latin words. Listen, there's a point to what I just said and you know it. There really is truth to the saying that you can't please everybody. Had they done nothing, you know there really would be a news story on how another threat slipped through. It would at least get a mention in a stump speech. Tell me it wouldn't.

And, I think our long discussion before was about terrorist supporters, and I think if finally gave up and dropped it as well. It's not like I accused anyone here of having the courage, audacity, conviction, or stupidity to strap on a bomb and actually be a terrorist. It was about supporting a side -- and I really don't want to get into it again, cause we beat it to death.

I think you just got so incensed I called you a hippie. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] It was just a rant, man. I once had Jerry Bears on my bumper sticker, too. I'm just words you read online, you shouldn't get so offended.

And, I'm really sad if I lost your respect. No... really. Damn, where's that sincerity smiley? I know it's in here somewhere...

Calling me a hippie is calling a fish a fish. Really, don't make me show you the framed picture of Bob Marley hanging on my wall. :D

I apologize. Your right, it is just the freaking interent and I know better than to take hyperbole seriously. It got under my skin implying that that, as a hippie, I would take a grave criminal act and a national tragedy as an excuse for a hand-out when in fact I have worked hard for everything I have and declined hand-outs even when I qualified. So what! I see now it wasn't directed towards me. I fully believe some of the families of those lost in the world trade center attacks probably need(ed) help, financial and otherwise and applaude the efforts of those like Mr. Islam who contributed their talent and fame to help them.

This case has grown cold and still no hard proof of Mr. Islam's alledged terror support has surfaced. In fact the hard proof of recent times suggests otherwise. That indeed, Islam has turned away from the fundamentalism that drives terrorism.

I'm all for innocent til proven guilty because it works and sets the standard of a fair process. In this case no proof of guilt has been offered and I think banning Islam form the U.S. was a mistake. IF he is guilty of knowingly, actively supporting terrorists, this needs to be established so he can be deserving of the scorn the he has recieved. Otherwise the appearance of mis-justice becomes more than just that.

Respect,

Timber Loftis 10-10-2004 05:25 AM

Quote:

This case has grown cold and still no hard proof of Mr. Islam's alledged terror support has surfaced. In fact the hard proof of recent times suggests otherwise.
I wonder if you've read the other posts in this thread. I do note that a mere suspicion -- not absolute proof -- is enough to exclude a foreign national on the "better safe than sorry" principle.

Quote:

I'm all for innocent til proven guilty because it works and sets the standard of a fair process. In this case no proof of guilt has been offered and I think banning Islam form the U.S. was a mistake. IF he is guilty of knowingly, actively supporting terrorists, this needs to be established so he can be deserving of the scorn the he has recieved.
Again, those are standards for proving someone guilty and incarcerating them. The standards for denying entry are lower, and IMO rightfully so.

... for now.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved